All community residents are rallying against fracking. Photo by Laci Kettavong

“Fracking,” short for a method of extracting gas or oil from the ground called hydraulic fracturing was not in my vocabulary when I moved to Denton, Texas in August of 2011. I soon grew an affection for the town, and paired with my academic pursuits in philosophy and environmental issues at the University of North Texas, fracking in Denton became an industry of particular interest to me.

The fracking conversation that arose in recent years began with the environmental concerns of residents, then policy and regulations (or lack thereof) in response to these concerns, and finally, it has come down to a small town fighting for its representation and prevention of the health consequences that studies have proven could arise for the people, the land, and the wildlife that dwell here. This issue is particularly relevant due to the overturned fracking ban that Denton residents voted in last November; fracking has unfortunately re-started in the Denton area in the last month.

Peregrine falcon. Photo by Justin W. Moore

Many different studies on the local, national and international levels have brought to light the health consequences and the effects that fracking will have on the land, people, and wildlife in North Texas. Between late spring and fall, I usually take to the trails around Denton to visit the trees and grasslands, many of which are near a creek or body of water, land features in danger of being seriously affected by fracking.

Out on these trails, I’ve seen many gorgeous birds native or migrating through Texas, such as herons and falcons and white-tailed deer during each season. I don’t always catch the armadillos rummaging or the cottontails burrowing, but I can’t help but think that their home, water and air are being harmfully altered as well, and that resources vital to their sustenance are being poisoned. In nearby Wise County, residents reported that their water “stung their eyes during showers, and their animals refused to drink the water” after fracking had begun. From domestic animals to their wild relatives, creatures in North Texas are facing similar discomforts, but without a voice to represent them.

Cottontail rabbit. Photo by Justin W. Moore

On June 17th, a groundwater study was published in the trade journal Environmental Science and Technology. The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of Texas at Arlington. Over the past two years, samples were collected from 550 water wells in 13 counties along the Barnett Shale, Denton County being one of them.

The results of the study make it clear that using well water in the Barnett Shale has proven to be potentially dangerous, and it might become necessary not to use the water, which is not a feasible action for many. In another recent scientific study report from CHEM Trust, a British charity, CHEM Trust warns of severe risks to human health and wildlife from chemicals used in fracking. Part of the issues noted in this report include the possibility of harm to an estuary in Wyre, Lancashire in the UK, home to wading bird species of international importance.

White tailed deer. Photo by Justin W. Moore

These findings are contrary to claims from the United States Environmental Protection Agency: “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,” [their] study says, reported in early June. The fracking process involves injecting millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals into rock formations at high pressure, which breaks the rocks apart to release trapped fuel. It is not out of the question that this process might affect groundwater, as fracking is conducted in the vicinity of it, but the idea is being fought by the industry and not being supported by the EPA.

We need communities and individuals to continue to stand up to their local and state governments and demand that fracking is banned, as I have seen the hardworking and determined people of Denton, Texas do for the last few years.

Denton, Texas residents formed Frack Free Denton as part of their initiatives to educate the public about the dangers of hydraulic fracturing. See more of their story and efforts here.

About the Author: Laci Kettavong was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. Her family’s story of emigration from the Lao PDR to the United States has influenced her academic and professional interests to include sustainability, water issues and environmental history. Laci is currently an NWF EcoLeader Fellow and is helping to write content for the EcoLeader Career Center. She is also a graduate student and teaching assistant at the University of North Texas, studying environmental philosophy and science. Laci enjoys creating art, gifts, and décor from recycled and reusable materials and being a part of the vibrant Denton, Texas community where she attends school. The community has come together to enforce the fracking ban for which they voted and she has become interested in covering and sharing their story.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2015/07/fracking-in-north-texas-a-local-perspective/feed/1107742European Trade Document Reveals Threat to Wildlife Habitat and Climatehttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/european-trade-document-reveals-threat-to-wildlife-habitat-and-climate/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/07/european-trade-document-reveals-threat-to-wildlife-habitat-and-climate/#respondWed, 09 Jul 2014 16:49:51 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=98210A leaked trade document from the European Union was published yesterday by the Washington Post, revealing how the EU is pressuring the United States to lift its ban on crude oil exports to allow them access to our oil and gas. In the leaked documents about a proposed trade deal (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership –TTIP), the EU expressed it is seeking a legally binding rule which, if approved by the United States, would require the U.S. to approve all crude oil and natural gas exports to the EU with no review process. This could dramatically increase our oil exports, possibly trigger more development, and severely undermine efforts to combat climate change and protect our lands.

Throughout the West, reservoirs of oil and gas overlie important mule deer habitats. Flickr photo by Alan Vernon.

This pre-approval of oil and gas exports would overturn a decades-old ban we currently have in place against exporting our crude oil, and would bypass DOE’s current obligation to review the impacts of liquefied natural gas exports before they approve them. While oil companies and some European states would benefit from this greed-induced provision in the trade deal, it is the American people who would see their natural places destroyed and feel the impacts of climate change on their communities. Lifting the band would drive U.S. oil industry to produce more oil, further exploiting our natural places and driving climate pollution while putting cash in the pockets of big fossil fuel corporations.

Already we see unprecedented levels of drilling for fossil fuels on public and private lands with sensitive wildlife habitat. Our public lands are home to iconic wildlife species like the mule deer and the elk. Allowing export of oil will spur more destruction, fragmentation and fracking of wildlife habitat and public lands, making it increasingly more difficult for wildlife species to survive.

Moving Production in the Wrong Direction

Drilling operations across tens of thousands of acres of the Roan Plateau on the Western Slope of Colorado. Flickr photo by SkyTruth.

As we look to tackle the biggest global challenge facing us today, climate change, we know that we need to keep fossil fuel in the ground to avoid climatic disaster. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that at least two thirds of existing proven global fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground in order to avoid catastrophic climate tipping points. We can’t encourage oil production by allowing domestic oil export and keep the carbon in the ground simultaneously. We need to be reducing both oil extraction and use, not spurring it on.

President Obama has repeated his commitment to be a global leader on climate change, and has made great strides in reducing domestic carbon emissions with actions such as the newly released carbon rules to limit pollution from power plants. But we cannot maintain that role and cut carbon pollution at home while exporting millions of tons of carbon pollution across the globe. Overturning the export ban would increase emissions worldwide, and would undercut our moral authority to lead the world on reducing emissions.

The Green River, the site of a recent oil spill, is the chief tributary of the Colorado River. It’s home to endangered fish species and is important to tourism. Photo by Ann Morgan.

An unknown volume of oil and water from a Utah drilling site has flown into the Green River, the chief tributary of the Colorado River. The spill—caused by a ruptured valve on a well—is just the latest reminder of what’s at stake when things go wrong with oil and gas operations, and why we need adequate regulations and enforcement.

It’s also a reminder that no place is too remote to matter. The initial spill in late May occurred in a dry stream bed on public land in east-central Utah, what some might call “the middle of nowhere.” But all it took was heavy rainfall late last week that overwhelmed an emergency barrier to trigger alarms about contamination of the Green River. The Green feeds into the Colorado River, the water source for more than 25 million people.

The Green River is also habitat for endangered fish species, including the razorback sucker, currently spawning downstream from the spill. It’s a favorite of rafters and anglers and a huge boon to the region’s outdoor-based economy.

The Bureau of Land Management has said it believes only a small amount of the oil and water mixture made it into the Green.

Murky Situation

“We were able to catch this incident and act quickly to contain the leak and minimize the impacts to the environment,” Juan Palma, Utah state BLM director said in a news release.

Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, counters that the BLM is trying to minimize a serious threat.

“The BLM failed the public and it’s high time to acknowledge their mistakes instead of green washing this pollution,” Frankel said.

It’s unclear how much oil and water spilled from the broken valve. The BLM estimates the amount at hundreds of gallons. The Utah Rivers Council says based on estimates of how long oil and water flowed from the well, the total could be closer to 100,000 gallons.

John Collar of Moab, who was camping above the Green River when the temporary dam was breached, disputes the BLM’s assessment of the damage. He told several media outlets that he noticed an oily sheen on the river several miles downstream from the spill.

“It was very visible. It was river wide, wall to wall. It was there when we left the next day,” Collar said to The Salt Lake Tribune as he described an oil sheen on the Green River.

State and federal environmental officials concede that we might never know how much oil got into the river. “No one was sitting there watching it,” said John Whitehead of the Utah Division of Water Quality, adding that any environmental problems will likely occur close to the spill site.

“We take these kinds of things extremely seriously. It’s never acceptable to have this stuff go into the river,” said Curtis Kimbel, who is heading the Environmental Protection Agency’s on-scene response.

The spill was contained as of Friday, Kimbel added, and state and federal employees continued cleanup and monitoring this week.

All that hasn’t eased conservationists’ concerns or outrage at ongoing problems with oil and gas spills. The BLM just wrapped up an investigation into contamination at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. Federal officials think three oil spills—one recent, two decades-old—fouled the soil and vegetation in a wash.

In western Colorado, a mix of oil water seeped near a creek that runs into the Colorado River. The leak discovered early last year was near an oil and natural gas processing plant. In April, state regulators said they still don’t know where or when the leak started.

Staffers at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Northern Utah tend to one of the beavers caught in an oil spill. Photo by the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Northern Utah.

Considering the tens of thousands of existing oil and gas wells and more planned in the Rocky Mountain region, it’s not surprising that equipment fails, waste ponds overflow, pipelines rupture. All the more reason to strengthen regulations and beef up inspections and enforcement. It’s disturbing that contamination from decades-old spills near a national monument was just recently discovered. The Colorado-based Center for Western Priorities estimates that 13,600 drilling-related spills totaling nearly 102 million gallons occurred in Colorado and New Mexico between 2000 and 2013. For Colorado, that equates to roughly one per day during that period.

In Colorado, hunters, anglers and conservationists are still waiting for the state to make good on its pledge made about six years ago to establish statewide riparian setbacks for oil and gas wells.

It’s time for the Interior Department to update its 30-year-old regulations for fracking on federal lands. New technology and drilling techniques have made it easier to drill in more places. Interior has proposed changes addressing disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking, the integrity of the well bore, the hole that forms the well, and handling wastewater.

Our public lands are a public trust. The water, fish, wildlife and other resources must be protected.

Help Protect Public Lands

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/06/drilling-spills-on-public-lands-continue-to-threaten-water-wildlife-our-shared-public-heritage/feed/196423EPA research shows regulating methane is efficient and low costhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/epa-research-shows-regulating-methane-is-efficient-and-low-cost/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/04/epa-research-shows-regulating-methane-is-efficient-and-low-cost/#respondWed, 16 Apr 2014 17:46:16 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=94469This Tuesday, the EPA released five whitepapers examining methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and affirmed what we already knew—this powerful carbon pollutant can be reduced efficiently and cost-effectively. The white papers are part of President Obama’s multi-agency methane reduction strategy, and his broader Climate Action plan that aims to implement regulations on methane, one of the strongest greenhouse gases. The papers are open for public comment until June 16.

Atlantic puffins on the rocky cliffs of Latrabjarg in Iceland. Puffins are threatened by climate change and rising temperatures. Photo by Jim Urbach.

National Wildlife Federation commends EPA on taking this first step in ensuring methane pollution from the oil and gas sector is reduced. Curbing methane pollution is a critical piece in reducing carbon pollution and arresting climate change.

These papers look at the ways methane makes its way into our atmosphere: natural gas compressors, hydraulic fracturing (better known as fracking), leaks during natural gas production, removing liquids in gas wells and pneumatic devices used in the gas industry. They examine different technologies and how they can contribute to the reduction of methane while still being economically beneficial.

These papers confirm that we can limit methane emissions effectively and at a low cost. Last month, the Environmental Defense Fund released research that showed that industry could reduce methane emissions by 40 percent below project 2018 levels by adopting proven emissions control technology. Moreover, these technologies allow methane to be captured as a resource, rather than escaping as pollution.

Methane emissions come from a variety of different sources, with gas and oil production as one of the largest. Since it is a super potent greenhouse gas, it is essential that we do everything we can to keep methane emissions low. Luckily, capturing methane emissions simply means capturing more of their product, which can then be sold back into the market. This can be accomplished using existing technologies which often pay for themselves in a matter of months. We urge the EPA to move forward with regulations that will ensure industry takes such common-sense steps to reduce methane emissions.

Climate change fueled by methane and other greenhouse emissions threaten wildlife species and communities around the world. Reducing methane pollution, while we rapidly develop and invest in clean, renewable energies such as solar and offshore wind, will help to keep moving us forward on climate.

Oil trains traverse river valleys and major metropolitan areas every day, Flickr photo by Roy Luck.

You’ve heard of the three-legged stool: knock one leg out and the whole thing comes crumbling down. What happens when each leg is prone to snapping, over and over again, repeatedly? That’s the story of our fossil-fuel economy: the extraction, production and transportation of fossil fuels is incredibly dangerous and, lately, prone to disaster.

Oil Train Spill in Pennsylvania

Last Thursday, a train carrying crude oil and liquified natural gas derailed in Vandergrift, Pa. Three of the cars sprung leaks during the ensuing chaos, which also saw stray cars careening into the city:

Residents said the derailment was tremendous enough to shake buildings and could be heard throughout the surrounding area. One of the loose cars slammed into a business, destroying equipment that is used to mill steel blocks.

Thousands of gallons were apparently spilled, though a spokesperson for Norfolk Southern Corp, which owns the train, said the crude oil was contained and hazardous materials personnel were on the scene. That same spokesman said it was a good thing the train derailed where it did, between two hills, and not in a more populated area. He’s absolutely right: Vandergrift sits alongside the Kiskiminetas River. A spill in the river would have been much harder to contain, and the effects on wildlife would have been much worse.

Second Spill in North Carolina’s Dan River

A section of the Dan River upstream from the spill site. Flickr photo by Rebecca Murphey.

We wrote last week about the 82,000-ton, 27-million-gallon coal ash spill from a former coal-fired power plant near the Dan River. That was just the beginning of a disaster that will take months and years to unfold. This week, a second pipe was found leaking contaminants into the river, which already has a layer of ash up to 5-inches deep coating the riverbed into Virginia. Wildlife officials are not optimistic about the survival of species stuck in the spill’s path. According to Tom Reeder, director of the North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources:

“If you’re some sort of a mobile species, like a mollusk or a snail or you’re a plant or something like that, and you’re buried under coal ash, yeah, you’re going to die.”

Chevron Sends Pizza After Well Explosion

That’s right: when a natural-gas well exploded, killing one worker and starting a well fire that burned for five days, Big Oil thought the best remedy for local residents was a large pie and a two-liter bottle of soda.

No Leg to Stand on

I saw a number of sites reference Chevron’s laughable attempt and public relations yesterday, and I started thinking about all these news stories we’ve seen in the past week about fossil fuel disasters. And they are, indeed, disasters; perhaps not as ruinous as 2010’s Deepwater Horizon spill or the oil train that demolished a Quebecan town last year, but each of these events wrecked havoc on local residents and wildlife.

Even worse, these practices provide the foundation for the carbon pollution that fuels climate change. While these disasters remain localized for the moment, the more we rely on these polluting fuels the harder it will be to prevent global disasters that result from global warming.

But that’s just the cost of doing business with the fossil fuel industry.

Take Action

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2014/02/the-week-in-fossil-fuel-disasters/feed/092057Dirty Business: Congress Seeks To Export U.S. Fossil Fuels and Carbon Pollutionhttp://blog.nwf.org/2014/01/dirty-business-congress-seeks-to-export-u-s-fossil-fuels-and-carbon-pollution/
http://blog.nwf.org/2014/01/dirty-business-congress-seeks-to-export-u-s-fossil-fuels-and-carbon-pollution/#respondFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:52:53 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=90475In another shameless attempt to undermine sound climate policy and keep the pedal to the metal on dirty fuel production, House Congressional members snuck a provision into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill to halt sensible policies that virtually eliminate U.S. financing of new overseas coal plants in most circumstances. While the immediate impacts of this rider may be minimal, it marks a sad trend among some in Congress to spur further carbon pollution and dirty fuel production by opening international markets to domestic, carbon intensive fossil fuel.

As part of his climate agenda, President Obama promised, in June of 2013, to end public financing of overseas coal power plants. This promise was followed up by guidance from the Treasury Department, directing two US agencies which facilitate exports of machinery and other goods and services, (the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)), to only contribute to overseas coal plants in very limited circumstances. In the Omnibus spending bill just passed, the Congress has now ordered that this Treasury guidance not be implemented for the rest of this fiscal year.

According to NRDC, since 2007, over $9 billion dollars of tax payer money has gone to fund dirty coal plants overseas. The White House Climate Change Action Plan seeks to reverse this situation, which we applaud. This wise policy shift, which Congress is looking to derail, would ensure that essential energy investments by Ex-Im and OPIC in developing countries go to cleaner energy sources, rather than coal plants which spew carbon pollution and foul the water and air that millions of families drink and breathe.

Exporting a Problem

But with the U.S. domestically moving towards cleaner sources of power, the coal industry is looking for ways to access new markets for its coal to be burned. This is the driver behind six proposed plants in the Northwest that would take coal strip-mined from the beautiful Power River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, and ship it to Asia to burn. The Northwest doesn’t want the pollution it will bring, and doesn’t want to be a conduit for more carbon pollution to be generated abroad. As a result, three of these projects have been abandoned and investors are pulling out.

Yet coal’s friends in Congress are still trying to make sure there’s a market abroad to sell this coal. Their aim is to derail an international shift to responsible, renewable energy development that is good for wildlife and our children’s future – but less good for coal industry executives –come bonus time. Fortunately, this one year provision won’t have much practical impact, as neither Ex-Im nor OPIC have current plans to finance coal plants and abroad. Yet the Congressional “hold” on their new policies needs to be removed as quickly as possible to ensure continuation of the positive trend of investments in responsible energy.

Most disturbing about this provision is that it is another signal that the fossil fuel industry is using its influence over Congress to try to lock in new markets where that it can burn an amount of carbon that will virtually guarantee climate calamity. This comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing an energy “boom” that is dramatically increasing drilling on public and other lands. This boom is the largely reliant on extreme new technologies like “fracking,” which comes with a host of environmental concerns.

This boom is behind Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) similar attempt to examine overturning a ban on exports of U.S. oil. While preaching the need for energy independence, it seems odd that Congressional members would seek to sell U.S. oil abroad, which would likely increase fuel costs for consumers by manipulating supply.

Congress is seeking to make it easier to build dirty coal plants abroad. (Image courtesy of www.treehugger.com)

The irony of Congressional efforts to create fossil fuel markets abroad cannot be lost at a time when progress is being made in reducing emissions and transitioning away from fossil fuels here at home. This push to sell dirty fossil fuels abroad also exposes the specious nature of arguments that we need to open sensitive public lands to destructive drilling for “energy security” reasons.

If these efforts are allowed to succeed, domestic progress will be undone, leaving us with more carbon pollution, more drilling on public lands, more water and air pollution from dirty practices like fracking, more habitat destruction, more climate change, and more communities subjected to the risks of transporting dirty fuels by pipe, rail, or tanker.

That’s a lot of risk in return for more profits for coal, oil, and gas executives.

Take a Stand Against Fossil Fuels

It’s critical to support – not undermine – policies that keep carbon in the ground and promote clean, responsible energy. We need to make it loud and clear to Congress that we’re not willing to sacrifice our children’s future for fossil fuel profits.

Pilots with EcoFlight, an advocacy and education nonprofit, get a bird’s-eye view of flooded oil and gas fields on Colorado’s eastern plains. Photo courtesy of EcoFlight.

There’s the devastation that we know has been unleashed by Colorado’s rains of “of biblical proportions”—eight people presumed dead; about 1,500 homes destroyed and more than 17,000 damaged; and numerous roads and bridges across a broad swath of northeastern Colorado washed out or damaged.

Then there’s the trouble we’re just starting to glimpse. The flood waters carried by swollen rivers and creeks along Colorado’s Front Range are rolling across the eastern plains. Right in the path is Weld County, site of 20,544 active oil and gas wells as of Sept. 5. The Denver Post and other media started reporting about oil and gas spills late Wednesday. Anadarko Petroleum notified state regulators that at least 5,250 gallons from two tank batteries had spilled into the South Platte River. The company is using booms to absorb the oil and says it is using a vacuum in the cleanup.

As of Friday, regulators had confirmed spills totaling about 22,000 gallons, including 13,500 gallons of condensate — an oil and water mixture — from tanks near the St. Vrain River.

The Denver Post reported that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates the industry, called five spills along the South Platte “notable.”

Floodwaters that tore through eastern Colorado communities damaged homes and public spaces. like this park in Boulder. Photo by Whitney Coombs/ NWF

What’s in the water?

Industry representatives said earlier this week that nealy 1,900 wells in flooded areas had been shut down and that 600 employees were out inspecting and repairing equipment. Left unexplained was how could anyone know whether any storage tanks and other equipment had been swept away? How many are damaged and leaking? What about waste pits and pipelines?

The immediate attention appropriately has been on rescuing people and minimizing the damage. But the early reports about problems in the state’s largest oil and gas field drive home the fact that Coloradans will be coping with the effects for a long time. And we likely won’t even know the full extent of the effects for a while.

Thousand-year flood

The deluge is being called a 1-in-1,000-years flood. The National Weather Service says all kinds of precipitation records were broken in Boulder, which receives an average of 1.7 inches of rain in September. As of Monday, Boulder’s rainfall totaled 17.17 inches for the month. The area got 9.08 inches in 24 hours, another new record.

Boulder Creek usually runs about 200 cubic feet per second this time of year. It was running about 5,500 cfs at the height of the flood last week. Photo by Kamla Sullivan/NWF

Scientists are sorting through what role climate change played in the unprecedented downpour, which was so unlike the intense but usually quick thunderstorms common during Colorado’s monsoon season. Whether these kinds of storms, like the drought-driven wildlfires in the West, are the new norm is unclear. NBC News Science quotes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as saying the storm resulted from “a fetch of tropical moisture drawn north from Mexico by a weak, but large, upper-level low-pressure system that was blown up into the Rocky Mountains by a persistent southeasterly airflow.”

Warm air holds more moisture. The downpour that lasted days occurred in one of the area’s driest months. The Boulder-based National Center for Atmopsheric Research, where many climate scientists work, was closed by the flooding. It was closed last summer because of a nearby wildfire.

Work has started on cleaning up and rebuilding after the flood. It took heavy equipment to move sediment that piled up in north Boulder. Photo by Kamla Sullivan/NWF

What is clear is that we have to realize things are changing. Critics of the oil and gas industry say there should be no drilling or fracking in floodplains. There certainly should be mandatory buffers between well sites and all waterways, a pledge made by Colorado regulators a few years ago that remains unfulfilled. We need to know what’s in fracking fluids so we know what might be swirling around in floodwaters. Oil and gas companies should also switch to closed-loop drilling systems in which open waste pits are replaced with above-ground closed storage tanks.

In Colorado and much of the Southwest, the word in weather is “extreme.” Last summer Colorado experienced record-breaking heat. This year, we’ve seen what would normally be a once-in-a-generation storm. Who knows what’s next?

This version updates the estimated volumes of spills from oil and gas well sites in Colorado’s flood zones.

Northeastern Colorado has swung from drought to a 1-in-1,000-year flood. People are wondering what’s next. Photo by Kamla Sullivan/NWF

Speak out on climate change and concerns for affected wildlife, including wolverines! Tell Congress to pass legislation that will preserve habitat for wolverines and other wildlife>>
]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/09/flood-of-biblical-proportions-leaves-behind-devastation-pollution/feed/385682Weekly News Roundup – August 2, 2013http://blog.nwf.org/2013/08/weekly-news-roundup-august-2-2013/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/08/weekly-news-roundup-august-2-2013/#respondFri, 02 Aug 2013 15:39:57 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=83794Want to know what National Wildlife Federation was up to this week? Here is a recap of the week’s NWF news:

August 1-A national sportsmen’s coalition that supports updating federal rules for hydraulic fracturing is calling on Congress to reject a bill that would prohibit the Interior Department from regulating the practice.

The coalition Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development said Wednesday that H.R. 2728 would hamstring efforts to establish consistent, minimum standards to safeguard important resources on public lands.

The bill, being considered now by the House Natural Resources Committee, would bar Interior from regulating fracking on federal lands in states that have their own rules and guidance. The prohibition would apply even if the state rules weren’t as stringent as the federal regulations.

“The law requires that our public lands be managed for multiple uses. The American public supports conserving the fish and wildlife on those lands and protecting air and water quality,” said Brad Powell, senior policy director of the Sportsmen’s Conservation Project at Trout Unlimited. “Proposed updates to federal fracking rules are a good step forward in sensible regulation of a practice that has changed and expanded dramatically in the past few years. The House bill blocking federal regulation would be a huge step backward.”

July 29-A new Interior Department report further underlines the importance of our public lands to the U.S. economy and health of our fish, wildlife and waterways.

The activities of Interior, our nation’s largest landlord, contributed $371 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 2.3 million jobs in fiscal 2012, according to a report released Monday. Of that, $45 billion was generated by an estimated 417 million visits to national parks, wildlife refuges and other lands managed by Interior.

The report outlines the economic contributions from conservation, energy development, mining and other activities.

However, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell noted that many of the long-term benefits provided by public lands, including conservation of wetlands and wildlife habitat, can’t be easily quantified and, thus, aren’t included in the report’s bottom line.

A new report by the National Wildlife Federation titled “Valuing Our Western Public Lands: Safeguarding Our Economy and Way of Life,’’ highlights recent studies and surveys on the importance – economically, environmentally and socially – of conserving our public lands, the bulk of which are in the West.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/08/weekly-news-roundup-august-2-2013/feed/083794Fracking Bill could Take the ‘Public’ Out of Federal Landshttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/07/fracking-bill-could-take-the-public-out-of-federal-lands/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/07/fracking-bill-could-take-the-public-out-of-federal-lands/#respondWed, 31 Jul 2013 17:49:27 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=83502It’s about local control, say members of Congress who want the states, not the federal government, to regulate fracking on federal lands — those public lands that belong to all Americans.

A House committee is considering a bill that could block federal fracking regulations. Photo: Judith Kohler

The House Natural Resources Committee is considering a bill that would bar the feds from enforcing any “Federal regulation, guidance, or permit requirement regarding” fracking in states that have their own rules or guidance.

The impetus for the bill? The Interior Department has proposed updating its fracking regulations, which are more than 30 years old. It’s a reasonable thing to do considering that the technology has dramatically changed and literally transformed the landscape of drilling, opening up previously inaccessible deposits.

But the priority for the bill’s proponents is that the Interior Department keeps its hands off oil and gas operations on our public lands.

And they aren’t worried if the public or federal officials don’t think state rules are strong enough to protect water and air quality, human health, wildlife and fish. The bill sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Rep. Bill Flores of Texas would prohibit the Interior Department from regulating fracking on federal lands regardless whether state rules “are duplicative, more or less restrictive, shall have different requirements or do not meet Federal guidelines.”

During a recent hearing, Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey said the bill contains “broad terms with severe implications.”

“(The bill) would allow fracking within any unit of the national park system or any other federal land if it was permitted to do so under state law,” Rep. Holt warned.

Leavin’ it to the states?

The response from the bill’s proponents? The states are already doing a good job regulating fracking and other energy operations. Enforcing federal rules would be redundant.

“The bill before us today is about empowering local self-government in placing a check on the growth of an out-of-control, one-size-fits-all federal government,” Flores said during the hearing.

A cynic would argue that the bill is about the empowerment of the oil and gas industry. It’s easy to see why oil and gas companies would rather take their chances with state regulators. Consider the following:

Federal agencies are charged with balancing competing uses on federal lands and analyzing the potential effects on a range of resources. States usually have no such mandate.

The main focus of most state oil and gas commissions is on getting the minerals out of the ground and the makeup of commissions is typically heavily weighted toward industry.

While many state oil and gas agencies include the word “conservation” in their name, it doesn’t refer to “environmental protection,” as a recent E&E story noted. It refers to extracting all the oil and gas in an area before moving to another spot so the minerals aren’t wasted — “conserving” the petroleum resources.

The more things change…

Proponents of H.R. 2728 say federal fracking rules aren’t needed if states have their own regulations. Photo: Judith Kohler

Not so very long ago here in Colorado, the oil and gas industry was fighting the enforcement of state rules on federal land. Enactment of the Colorado Habitat Stewardship Act required the oil and gas commission to place a stronger emphasis on resources other than fossil fuels. The oil and gas commission’s membership was changed to include representation from local governments, conservationists and landowners.

The changes were championed by a governor who ran on a conservation platform and courted hunters and anglers who worried that a natural gas boom was threatening wildlife and habitat. The industry loudly protested the state’s insistence that the new rules applied to federal land.

The pendulum has swung again in Colorado. The administration of a different governor is joining an industry group in a lawsuit against the City of Longmont ,which has banned fracking within its borders. I doubt Longmont’s ban is the kind of “local self government” the federal lawmakers have in mind.

The bill’s proponents talk about states’ rights; that’s not the issue. The issue comes down to how energy is developed responsibly while we safeguard all the other important resources on lands. These lands are a public trust and are home to irreplaceable natural, archaeological and cultural treasures. It’s about requiring consistent, minimum environmental and health standards for a process that forces, at high pressure, chemical-laced fluids underground and leaves behind large volumes of wastewater.

It’s understandable that businesses seek whatever advantages they can. But as long as our public lands remain public, elected officials are obligated to consider more than corporate bottom lines when making decisions about them.

The Interior Department is considering new fracking rules, the first update in more than 30 years. NWF/Jack Dempsey

What harm would fracking do to that precious commodity — beer? Flickr: Mezzoblue

Who isn’t familiar with Coors advertising displaying snowy mountain peaks and touting the purity of Rocky Mountain water (despite the fact that the massive Coors plant in Golden killed thousands fish in a 2000 spill)? Beer is rightly a point of pride for Coloradans. Avery,Great Divide, New Belgium, and a host of smaller Colorado breweries have been at the forefront of a craft beer renaissance, offering beer fanciers a remarkable diversity and quality of lagers, ales, and other brews. Our geologist-turned brewer- turned- governor, John Hickenlooper, deserves tremendous credit for helping spur the growth of craft brewing, and the revitalization of downtown Denver, through his founding of the Wynkoop Brewing Co. I’m partial to their ESB.

Pure Rocky Mountain Spring Water?

The governor, however, has not always been as strong an advocate for Colorado’s surface and ground waters as he has been for quality beer. Perhaps the most prominent example is his oft-debunked claim to drinking “frack fluid.” “Frack fluid” refers to the host of chemical cocktails injected at high pressure into hydrocarbon-bearing geological formations, along with sand and water, to release the oil and gas fueling our latest drilling boom. Yet the brew the governor sampled is an expensive, experimental plant-based variety not actually in commercial use in the state. Real frack fluid contains a soup of chemicals toxic to humans and wildlife. I think this episode displays an unfounded assurance that fracking, and oil and gas development, is risk-free, and that the oil and gas industry can and will self-regulate to ensure that our state’s waters don’t suffer contamination from the rush to extract natural gas.

Germany’s Fracking Brew-Ha-Ha

I couldn’t help but wonder, then, whether the governor might not be persuaded otherwise at last by a new controversy “brewing” in, of all places, Germany. According to an article in Der Spiegel, German breweries have complained that hydraulic fracturing threatens to contaminate drinking water and violate “the beer purity law, or Reinheitsgebot, of 1516.” I was disappointed when research revealed that Colorado has no beer purity law of 1516. The German rule mandates that “German beer still may only be made from malt, hops, yeast and water.” Presumably, carcinogenic frack fluid constituents like benzene and 1,2-Dichloroethane don’t meet that definition.

Trucks line up at a fracking site in western Colorado. Photo by Judith Kohler

Many of us in Colorado have been disappointed by the governor’s apparently unquestioning embrace of oil and gas drilling, a stance that has manifested itself in litigation challenging municipal efforts to regulate the practice and in the administration’s undoing of modest proposed legislative reforms to the state’s badly outdated fine structure for violation of health, safety, and environmental regulations. Do we really want to risk being known for frack fluid cocktails and benzene spills rather than for clear streams and innovative IPAs? Perhaps the German brewers’ outrage might remind our governor that if there’s one thing about which Coloradans care deeply – it’s beer.
]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/05/governor-think-of-the-beer/feed/080788